I wouldn't use the word condone but The Bible doesn't really say much about homosexuality at all. It does mention excessive lust and sexual promiscuity between men but it also says similar things is relation to heterosexual relations so it shouldn't be viewed as a commentary against homosexuality specifically. Regarding relations between 2 people of the same sex in a committed relationship, The Bible says nothing against that.

,,,,so hard to tell... There is all that man laying with a man as if with a woman stuff in the OT. While Matthew in the NT refers to "eunuchs" which has been argued could, in some context, mean dudes who are not into babes.

@Richard Channing 's second and new prequel trailer for "Dynasty '69":

The phrase you refer to about a man laying with a man, if read in context it is referring to a specific group of people at a particular time and not an instruction for all mankind for all time.

The same chapter also states that anyone who curses his mother or father shall be put to death. If people no longer think this applies then it follows that other parts of this chapter relates to a those people at that particular time.

The phrase you refer to about a man laying with a man, if read in context it is referring to a specific group of people at a particular time and not an instruction for all mankind for all time.

Click to expand...

'splain, 'splain...

Angela Channing said:

The same chapter also states that anyone who curses his mother or father shall be put to death. If people no longer think this applies then it follows that other parts of this chapter relates to a those people at that particular time.

Click to expand...

Well, sure, there's lots of stuff that makes no sense ...

@Richard Channing 's second and new prequel trailer for "Dynasty '69":

If you read the whole chapter, the instruction is directed at a specific group of people at a particular time in history. It's not a direction for all people at all times. People accept that is true for other parts of the chapter, such as my earlier example of killing people who curse their parents, so we should accept it's true for the whole chapter.

I've never read it, but I would laugh my head off if it turned out that homosexuality wasn't actually frowned upon - oh how the DUP would crap themselves!!!

Click to expand...

I don't believe The Bible condemns same sex relationships but people who want to pursue a homophobic agenda can choose to misrepresent the scripture to support their views.

If you take quotations out of context they have a very different meaning. An analogy that I can relate to is that experts will tell runners not to eat food that is high in fibre before running a marathon and having run many marathons it is good advice. However, this only applies to a specific group of people (runners) and a particular at a particular point in time (before running a race) but at all other times and for all other people, eating a lot of fibre is a good thing. It's the same for how homosexuality is addressed in The Bible: it is frowned upon for specific groups of people who were judged to be behaving badly at specific times. It is wrong to extrapolate this condemnation as a rule for all mankind for ever.

In The Bible there are texts that condemned homosexual relationships between specific groups of men who were engaging in excessively lustful, non-consensual or promiscuous interactions with other men. The Bible says nothing in relation to lesbians nor does it say anything in relation to men in committed gay relationships so I think it's wrong to suggest Christianity condemns homosexuality in general.

He made his point in a reasonable way, but compare his words in the above article with those he spoke less than a year ago when it was in his best interests to categorically state that he was fine with the idea.

I don’t believe that gay sex is a sin... That’s why it’s really important I answer it clearly today and say, it’s not, and I don’t feel it is.

Click to expand...

He feels strongly enough about it to make a damaging, judgemental statement. But not so strongly that if there's something in it for him he can pretend otherwise. Yet another example of the hypocrisy of people whose distorted interpretations of faith make life hell for others.

He made his point in a reasonable way, but compare his words in the above article with those he spoke less than a year ago when it was in his best interests to categorically state that he was fine with the idea.

He feels strongly enough about it to make a damaging, judgemental statement. But not so strongly that if there's something in it for him he can pretend otherwise. Yet another example of the hypocrisy of people whose distorted interpretations of faith make life hell for others.

Click to expand...

Tim Farron fought the 2010 general election on a pledge to oppose any increase in tuition fees and then promptly voted to trebled them shortly after the election. This man, like many in his party, is not known for honesty.

If you read the whole chapter, the instruction is directed at a specific group of people at a particular time in history. It's not a direction for all people at all times.

Click to expand...

That is true-- unfortunately, you have these religious jokers where I'm from here in the South (televangelists among them) that insist that not only was that to be done then, but also is still to be done now!

"CBS Sports presents...The Prudential College Football Report, sponsored by The Prudential, offering a full range of insurance and other financial services. The Prudential: the Rock...it's strong, it's on the move, it's bigger than life."

(Don Robertson, opening billboard on The Prudential College Football Report in the 1986 season [Jim Nantz's second season with CBS Sports])